Retractions on the rise
-
Kinda reminds me of this Sabine Hossenfelder vid: My dream died, and now I'm here[^]
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
-
Retractions of scientific journal papers are increasing nowadays. Sometimes, highly cited papers also get retracted. There is indeed something called 'Retraction Watch'. Looks like the 'bug' of instant fame and glory has bitten some of today's scientists, researchers. Wonder how the Universities which employ such 'Retraction Scientists' will handle them subsequent to retraction, in terms of tenure, salary hikes, etc.
I'd consider looking into the peer review process, as maybe it could use tightening up. Researchers are bound to make mistakes without peer review, for the same reason you don't proof read your own resume or review your own code. My husband - when he had time for it - would peer review articles in his field, so I know a little about the process, and what I do know of it seems it's heavily reliant on the individuals doing the peer review. It's essentially crowdsourcing review to try and find mistakes, but maybe they need to be more selective about their crowds?
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
-
I'd consider looking into the peer review process, as maybe it could use tightening up. Researchers are bound to make mistakes without peer review, for the same reason you don't proof read your own resume or review your own code. My husband - when he had time for it - would peer review articles in his field, so I know a little about the process, and what I do know of it seems it's heavily reliant on the individuals doing the peer review. It's essentially crowdsourcing review to try and find mistakes, but maybe they need to be more selective about their crowds?
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
Looks like it's becoming like - 'I'll pat your back, you pat mine'.
-
Or maybe "fudge and publish sooner".
-
I'd consider looking into the peer review process, as maybe it could use tightening up. Researchers are bound to make mistakes without peer review, for the same reason you don't proof read your own resume or review your own code. My husband - when he had time for it - would peer review articles in his field, so I know a little about the process, and what I do know of it seems it's heavily reliant on the individuals doing the peer review. It's essentially crowdsourcing review to try and find mistakes, but maybe they need to be more selective about their crowds?
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
-
I'd consider looking into the peer review process, as maybe it could use tightening up. Researchers are bound to make mistakes without peer review, for the same reason you don't proof read your own resume or review your own code. My husband - when he had time for it - would peer review articles in his field, so I know a little about the process, and what I do know of it seems it's heavily reliant on the individuals doing the peer review. It's essentially crowdsourcing review to try and find mistakes, but maybe they need to be more selective about their crowds?
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
I've done a bit of peer review in my area of expertise over the years. Peer review kind-of relies on the fact that what you're reading in the paper is honest. A reviewer can't be expected to recreate the results - the peer review process is intended to ensure that the paper's conclusions could reasonably be drawn from the results that are presented and the reported interpretation isn't simply fiction. If the reported results are incorrect, that's very difficult for the reviewer to ascertain. There are many reasons for reported results to be "incorrect". Typos in spreadsheets, confirmation bias, commercial interest, the "publish or perish" model that obermd has already mentioned . . . simple dishonesty . . . I'm sure you can think of others. Peer review is not perfect . . . but it's way better than the "no peer review" that some pay-for-publication portals allow.
Treading on the toes of giants . . .
-
Part of the problem is more and more on-line "journals" are bypassing the peer review process. Peer review is by no means perfect, but it's better than bypassing it.
Yikes. They aren't really journals then - they're magazines. :laugh:
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
-
Retractions of scientific journal papers are increasing nowadays. Sometimes, highly cited papers also get retracted. There is indeed something called 'Retraction Watch'. Looks like the 'bug' of instant fame and glory has bitten some of today's scientists, researchers. Wonder how the Universities which employ such 'Retraction Scientists' will handle them subsequent to retraction, in terms of tenure, salary hikes, etc.
Amarnath S wrote:
Retractions of scientific journal papers are increasing nowadays
Somewhat over the past 10 years or so they have learned that the criteria for judging data as showing a positive result was too 'loose'. This is especially true in the social and psychological sciences. I believe they (real journals) have now tightened that up. Of course none of that applies for pay to publish journals.
-
Part of the problem is more and more on-line "journals" are bypassing the peer review process. Peer review is by no means perfect, but it's better than bypassing it.
obermd wrote:
Part of the problem is more and more on-line "journals" are bypassing the peer review process.
Stating that a bit more clearly. Obviously it is much easier for an online journal to exist that a print journal and thus there are many new ones. And many of that have a 'pay to publish' model. So the author pays to have the study published. Some of those journals claim to have a peer review process. But although there might be a very few exceptions it is most likely just a rubber stamp process. However in the same way I suspect it is very unlikely that those journals are retracting anything. Wouldn't surprise me if the only possible model would be if the original author paid again to have it retracted.
-
I've done a bit of peer review in my area of expertise over the years. Peer review kind-of relies on the fact that what you're reading in the paper is honest. A reviewer can't be expected to recreate the results - the peer review process is intended to ensure that the paper's conclusions could reasonably be drawn from the results that are presented and the reported interpretation isn't simply fiction. If the reported results are incorrect, that's very difficult for the reviewer to ascertain. There are many reasons for reported results to be "incorrect". Typos in spreadsheets, confirmation bias, commercial interest, the "publish or perish" model that obermd has already mentioned . . . simple dishonesty . . . I'm sure you can think of others. Peer review is not perfect . . . but it's way better than the "no peer review" that some pay-for-publication portals allow.
Treading on the toes of giants . . .
QuantumPlumber wrote:
but it's way better than the "no peer review" that some pay-for-publication portals allow.
I suspect most have no peer review. And those that claim it I suspect most are just a rubber stamp. Certainly myself I would suspect any journal even with a peer review claim that operates like that.
-
I'd consider looking into the peer review process, as maybe it could use tightening up. Researchers are bound to make mistakes without peer review, for the same reason you don't proof read your own resume or review your own code. My husband - when he had time for it - would peer review articles in his field, so I know a little about the process, and what I do know of it seems it's heavily reliant on the individuals doing the peer review. It's essentially crowdsourcing review to try and find mistakes, but maybe they need to be more selective about their crowds?
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
-
Retractions of scientific journal papers are increasing nowadays. Sometimes, highly cited papers also get retracted. There is indeed something called 'Retraction Watch'. Looks like the 'bug' of instant fame and glory has bitten some of today's scientists, researchers. Wonder how the Universities which employ such 'Retraction Scientists' will handle them subsequent to retraction, in terms of tenure, salary hikes, etc.
and this is why, when people say, "Follow the science..." it's far more important to follow the money. Decades ago, I "helped" a grad student that was doing some ground breaking research in gallium arsenide photovoltaic semiconductors. He published his results 1 week after some other person published theirs. Didn't matter the data, first person gets to be declared the expert.
Charlie Gilley “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759 Has never been more appropriate.